I'm no fan of Carl, but I don't see why he'd object to that sort of deal. BTW, I think you're right about DanO's type, though I refer to it as "bureaucrat" rather than "organizer." Main difference being that an organizer would be ready for a paradigm shift. DanO's inability to address the team's contract situation (I include the failure to lock up Dunn before his value went into the stratosphere) has left him largely unable to seize upon a paradigm shift.Originally Posted by westofyou
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
There have been some wonderful CEO's that been non-visionary types. There's the guy who ran the buggy whip industry, the brand manager for Betamax (I think Sony made him a CEO), the guy who decided the future of Amtrak was in passenger trains, and all those guys who decided that upstart in Redmond WA could never dislodge their market leading software (Lotus 123, Wordperfect, DBase, Netscape).
Love those guys.
Last edited by Steve4192; 11-01-2004 at 12:41 PM.
Because he's a long term vision businessman who prefers stability and small growth over long shot bets and temporary red spots on the ledger.I'm no fan of Carl, but I don't see why he'd object to that sort of deal.
I'm not saying that it's right for the baseball business, but that is what I see happening.
Vision has always been filtered through a stack of worn out dollar bills as far as the Reds are concerned.
Again, I'd agree if were talking about going further into the red, but Loaiza cost less than Graves. A deal like that would have immediately pushed the ledger deeper into the black. That was a have your cake and eat it deal. Why other GMs don't camp out in Chicago and schedule a daily round of golf with Kenny Williams escapes me. Then again, Bill Bavasi might need a links buddy up in Seattle.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
Maybe Ozzie thinks he can "fix" Jose because they both speak Spanish?Again, I'd agree if were talking about going further into the red, but Loaiza cost less than Graves.
Maybe no one wanted Graves because his K/9 is consistently below league average and his SLG % against is outrageous, maybe no one is fooled by his Saves?
We aren't.... why should guys who have to justify his salary in a divsion race.
I think it's easy to pick out who should have been moved, but as I said before I think this season was just about creating a positive atmosphere in the Reds workplace as it was about "winning now" that's why Lidle was traded (he was new, he whined a bit) and Jones (he was asked if it was OK)
It doesn't do squat for the team on the ledger or in the W/L column, but it creates an air of stability to the general public and to the team.
Incomplete
- has made no long term siginings
- has not unloaded any of the bloated contracts
- has made no significant acquisitions
Maybe they should install some motion detectors in the FO to see if anything at all is going on in there.
I guess DanO is still deciding if he should go for the prune juice or the dried apricots.
Is it just me or does DanO look like a card carrying member of the Golden Buckeye club?
Last edited by flyer85; 11-01-2004 at 01:51 PM.
And you can pick out just as many faults with many of the players throughout the league who've been dealt since DanO took the reins. I guess I'm in a no-win argument here (and not specifically with you WOY, but it's sort of general theme on this board). First I get told that no one wanted flawed players like the guys on the Reds. So I point out where other flawed players get dealt. Then I get told that the contracts the Reds players have are too onerous to trade. So I point out that other onerous contracts managed to get dealt. Then I encounter one of the last two lines of defense: "Well, you don't know anyone offered those deals to the Reds." -- or -- "Deals like this didn't fit in with the plan."
To the first, it's true, I don't know specifically what the Reds were offered. Though I'm pretty sure it's well-nigh impossible to make the kind of moves we're talking if you wait around for someone else to bring up the idea. All I'm able to say is it CAN be done and other teams DO it. The Reds would be well-served to join those ranks.
To the second, well, I'm not exactly sure why I'm supposed to laud inaction because it fits in with a crap plan. That would seem to be a double barrel of bad. I saw the 2002 and 2003 Reds. Both were tight-knit, gritty, overachieving teams. Seemed like a real positive atmosphere to me -- team full of affable players who pulled together for a string of unlikely victories. Sure it fell apart both times and that let out some negative vibes, but that was an inevitable consequence of fielding an undertalented team.
All DanO managed to do was get a repeat of that pattern in 2004. Same feel-good first half, followed by the same feel-bad second half. Nothing gained. Nothing established. Everyone's breathing the same air they were a year ago. If you're right, if creating a better work environment was DanO's lone objective for 2004, then he wasted a year and I graded him too kindly in giving him a D.
Last edited by M2; 11-01-2004 at 02:55 PM.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
But if that was his goal then my bet is they don't give a rats behind what the grade is from outsiders.If you're right, if creating better work environment was DanO's lone objective for 2004, then he wasted a year and I graded him too kindly in giving him a D.
M2, we're talking about a huge front office transition last year. Dan O had more to do than construct a 25-man roster for major league play. But you pretty much fail to acknowledge anything beyond what you saw at the major league level (except to render immediate judgment that the draft was a failure, even though those players are years away). O'Brien has said many times that it's going to take a while. He's not trying to fool anyone. Doesn't mean you have to like it. But to claim that he's done nothing in the transition from the Bowden era is disingenuous.
I doubt they gave a rat's behind about that regardless.
All I'm saying is if DanO continues to ignore his larger problems in the pursuance of trifles then he'll have to surrender a truckload of rodent hindquarters on the day he gets pink-slipped after a string of consistent failure. Also, if DanO's that oblivious, if where we're at can be summed up by princeton's "looking for a paradigm shift with a guy that has no vision and can neither act nor sell seems more like 'cross your fingers and have faith that the meek shall inherit,'" then maybe it's time I stopped caring so much about this franchise.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
I know this guy. He's a CIO-for-hire and only works for BIG companies. Generally he's regarded as the best at what he does. He rolls in, figures out what he's got, maps out where he needs to go and gets there within two to three years. One thing he's adamant about is not wasting time on bureaucracy. He gets a small leadership team, works like a dog to establish buy-in throughout the entrenched personnel in the corporation and makes sure that he's got constant, visible progress. If something needs to go, he gets rid of it. If something needs to be added, he adds it. One time he told me, "Get the momentum rolling and people will want to join the team." Now, he's hardly the only person I've met who works off that template, but he's the best I've seen at it in the business world, certainly he's the most articulate about it (places like Harvard, Yale and Wharton fly him in for annual lectures).
DanO had the same front office transition that every team that replaces its GM has. We see this year after year after year. New execs come in, they hire a few chief lieutenants, business goes on. Big deal. It's what they do that counts (and office management doesn't fill the bill).
I never said DanO's done nothing. He's done nothing important and the Reds find themselves in the same place they were a year ago as a result.
Last edited by M2; 11-01-2004 at 03:46 PM.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
the two goals, as I saw 'em, was to not lose badly on $45mill while also building a top farm system
we didn't lose badly at first, then we did. But more importantly, to not lose badly on $45mill will require moving players as they get expensive, and we didn't do that.
to build a top farm system, good drafts will be required. We didn't do that.
so we missed both of our goals, and it was a bad year. He'll need to be more aggressive in moving players, and he'll need to change the drafter. I don't see either thing happening. Another bad year coming up.
Yeah, I never really understood how he supposedly restructured the front office.
I always thought that a new GM brings in his own people, and they just commence to getting rolling.
I understand the importance of fixing the minor leagues, and DanO's paid lots of lip service to them, but not much else, so I don't really see that as an excuse for ignoring the two big problems on the big league front. Pitching, and bad contracts.
He had things plop right down in his lap this past mid season, and he did nothing.
Nobody's asking him to build Rome, but a couple of roads leading up to the constuction site were needed and he failed.
"Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field?" ~ Jim Bouton
Funny that I never seen the criticism directed at O'Brien in just one year compared to the 10 years Bowden was at the helm.
Go figure.
If you think small, you'll go nowhere in life.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
